County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Company

California Court of Appeal

County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Company

200 P. 32, 53 Cal. App. 796, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 434

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 11, 1921

DocketCiv. No. 3261.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 P. 32 (County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Company, 200 P. 32, 53 Cal. App. 796, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, J.

In a proceeding against defendants for the condemnation of a strip of land for use as a highway, the plaintiff had an interlocutory judgment, followed by a final order and judgment condemning the property. Thereafter, under and in accordance with the provisions of section 1254 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court made an order under and by virtue of which plaintiff was authorized to take immediate possession and use of the property, from which order defendants have appealed.

In the case of Adamson v. County of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. App. 125, [198 Pac. 52], the plaintiff therein, alleging the order was void, sought to have the county enjoined from the prosecution of work in the construction of the road. From an adverse judgment rendered by the superior court, Adamson appealed. The court of appeal held the order was valid and that no ground existed for the attack made thereon. The determination of the court there had *797 must be deemed decisive of the question. Upon the authority of that case and what is said by this court in County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Co. et al., ante, p. 166, [200 Pac. 27], the order appealed from is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHAW, J.

In a proceeding against defendants for the condemnation of a strip of land for use as a highway, the plaintiff had an interlocutory judgment, followed by a final order and judgment condemning the property. Thereafter, under and in accordance with the provisions of section 1254 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court made an order under and by virtue of which plaintiff was authorized to take immediate possession and use of the property, from which order defendants have appealed.

In the case of Adamson v. County of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. App. 125, [198 Pac. 52], the plaintiff therein, alleging the order was void, sought to have the county enjoined from the prosecution of work in the construction of the road. From an adverse judgment rendered by the superior court, Adamson appealed. The court of appeal held the order was valid and that no ground existed for the attack made thereon. The determination of the court there had *797 must be deemed decisive of the question. Upon the authority of that case and what is said by this court in County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Co. et al., ante, p. 166, [200 Pac. 27], the order appealed from is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 P. 32, 53 Cal. App. 796, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-los-angeles-v-rindge-company-calctapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack